correctional officers' perceptions of equitable treatment in the masculinized prison...

http://cjr.sagepub.com/Criminal Justice Review

http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/30/2/189The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0734016805284306

2005 30: 189Criminal Justice ReviewMarie L. Griffin, Gaylene S. Armstrong and John R. Hepburn

Correctional Officers' Perceptions of Equitable Treatment in the Masculinized Prison Environment

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Published in Association with Georgia State University, Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology

can be found at:Criminal Justice ReviewAdditional services and information for

http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://cjr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/30/2/189.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Feb 23, 2006Version of Record >>

at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on October 7, 2014cjr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on October 7, 2014cjr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cjr.sagepub.com/

http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/30/2/189

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://chhsweb.gsu.edu/

http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://cjr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/30/2/189.refs.html

http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/30/2/189.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



10.1177/0734016805284306Criminal Justice ReviewGriffin et al. / Perceptions of Organizational Support

Correctional Officers’ Perceptionsof Equitable Treatment in theMasculinized Prison EnvironmentMarie L. GriffinArizona State University

Gaylene S. ArmstrongSouthern Illinois University, Carbondale

John R. HepburnArizona State University

Research suggests that employee perceptions of an organization’s support for policies that pro-mote an equitable work environment may differ significantly by race and gender groups. Thisstudy examines such perceptual differences and their attitudinal effects on employee experi-ences within the unique context of a prison setting. Significant differences in correctional officerperceptions of policies are found to exist by race and gender groups. Contrary to expectations, allrace and gender groups perceive strong organizational support for equal treatment policies.Moreover, the work experiences of White males are not negatively affected by perceptions oforganizational support for equal treatment as had been hypothesized.

Keywords: correctional officers; prison; equal treatment; job satisfaction; organizationalcommitment

Recent Supreme Court rulings on the use of race-based affirmative action policies in theUniversity of Michigan’s law school and undergraduate admissions process have rein-

vigorated debate regarding the value of diversity and the need for equal treatment within thepublic sphere (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003). This interest in diversity and equal treatment alsois reflected in the expanding body of social science research that examines the efficacy ofsuch policies in the workplace (see Crosby, Iyer, Clayton, & Downing, 2003). Researchershave examined the effectiveness of affirmative action policies to increase diversity in theworkplace (Badgett, 1999; Blank, 1985; Konrad & Linnehan, 1995) as well as the organiza-tional benefits derived from a diverse workforce (McLeod, Lobel, & Cox, 1996; Milliken &Martins, 1996; Reskin, 1998; Watson, Kumar, & Michaelson, 1993). Other studies haveexplored the unintended and at times negative consequences of affirmative action policieswithin organizations, including lowered perceptions of competence by the individual and bycoworkers (Heilman & Alcott, 2001; Heilman, Battle, Keller, & Lee, 1998; Heilman, Block,& Lucas, 1992; Kravitz, 1995; Nacoste, 1987; Nosworthy, Lea, & Lindsay, 1995).

The extent to which employee perceptions of organizational policies that promote equaltreatment influence other work-related experiences is less certain. In what instances mightthe pursuit of equal treatment within an organization and the benefits that accrue from such a

189

Criminal Justice ReviewVolume 30 Number 2

September 2005 189-206© 2005 Georgia State University

Research Foundation, Inc.10.1177/0734016805284306

http://cjr.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on October 7, 2014cjr.sagepub.comDownloaded from


policy lead to employee dissatisfaction or other negative assessments of the organization?This concern is of particular significance to organizations that have exhibited an historicalresistance to the integration of women and minorities. This study explored this issue withinthe prison setting, an organization that although moving toward a professional and morediverse workforce, remains characterized as less than fully receptive of women and minori-ties within its ranks (Belknap, 1991; Britton, 1997, 2003; Owen, 1985; Pogrebin & Poole,1997, 1998; Savicki, Cooley, & Gjvesvold, 2003; Stohr, Mays, Beck, & Kelley, 1998). Thisstudy examined group differences in correctional officers’perceptions of workplace policiessupportive of equal treatment and the effect of these perceptions on the outcome variables ofjob satisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment.

Literature Review

Perceptual Differences Among Gender and Racial Groups

The numerous studies examining individual perceptions of policies promoting equal treat-ment have revealed a complex set of attitudes, experiences, and beliefs that appear to influ-ence individual reactions to the role of affirmative action within an organization. Much of thisresearch has suggested that support for affirmative action and equal opportunity policies wasa function of group identity, with perceptions of such policies differing significantly byracial-ethnic group and by gender (e.g., Konrad & Linnehan, 1995; Kossek & Zonia, 1993;Kravitz & Plantania, 1993; Parker, Baltes, & Christiansen, 1997). For example, Kluegel andBobo (1993) and Kluegel and Smith (1983) found women and minorities were more support-ive than White males of affirmative action policies. Other research suggested that women andminorities were less likely than White men to believe that their organization supports affir-mative action policies (Kossek & Zonia, 1993; Parker et al., 1997). In a similar vein, Camp,Steiger, Wright, Saylor, and Gilman (1997) found that White male correctional officerstended to have exaggerated perceptions of promotional opportunities available to Black malecorrectional officers within a prison organization.

Researchers noted that group differences in the perception of affirmative action and equalopportunity policies stemmed from a variety of beliefs and concerns, including the antici-pated impact of such policies on one’s self-interest (Summers, 1995; Veilleux & Tougas,1989), especially when comparing one’s own advancement opportunity to that of others(Camp et al., 1997). Racism and sexism also were found to have had a significant influenceon attitudes toward affirmative action policies, with those individuals exhibiting more sexistbeliefs (Tougas, Crosby, Joly, & Pelchat, 1995) or racist attitudes (Bobo, 2000; Dovido &Gaertner, 1996; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996) less likely to support affirmative action poli-cies. Beliefs regarding the need for affirmative action policies to address organizational dis-crimination (Camp et al., 1997; Kleugal & Smith, 1983; Kravitz et al., 2000) as well asbeliefs regarding the fairness of affirmative action policies (Heilman et al., 1992; Kravitz,1995; Leck, Saunders, & Charbonneau, 1996; Slaughter, Sinar, & Bachiochi, 2002) alsohave influenced support for such policies. In addition, political affiliation (Carmines & Lay-man, 1998) and political conservatism (Kravitz et al., 2000) were found to be related to anindividual’s support for affirmative action policies.

With this literature in mind, how might an employee’s perception of organizational sup-port for affirmative action policies or other organizational policies promoting equal treat-

190 Criminal Justice Review



ment influence work-related attitudes and experiences? Few studies have examined this issuedirectly. As summarized above, much of the research on group differences in perceptions ofaffirmative action policies within an organization explored predictors of such perceptions aswell as their place within broader belief structures. A study by Parker et al. (1997) was one ofthe few to examine attitudinal consequences of perceived organizational support for affirma-tive action and equal opportunity policies. Their study examined group differences in percep-tions of organizational support for affirmative action policies and the effect of these percep-tions on work attitudes (e.g., employee loyalty and satisfaction), on employee belief indistributive and procedural justice, and on career development opportunities. They foundthat for White men, perceived organizational support for affirmative action policies was notnegatively related to work attitudes, as had been hypothesized. In fact, the researchers foundthat among White men and women, the perception that the organization supported affirma-tive action policies was linked to increased employee loyalty but had no effect on overall jobsatisfaction. In addition, a positive relationship between perceptions of organizational sup-port for affirmative action and employee job satisfaction and loyalty was more pronouncedfor the Black and Hispanic group than for any other racial-ethnic grouping.

Indicative of the complex dynamics of group differences in perceptions of affirmativeaction policies and in light of previous research, Parker et al. (1997) cautioned against gener-alization to other settings. The authors suggested that the rather surprising finding regardingWhite men’s positive response to perceptions that their organization supports affirmativeaction policies was due to the fact that their sample consisted of relatively well-educated indi-viduals working within a governmental organization. Despite this possible limitation, Parkeret al. (1997) concluded that their findings, when taken as a whole, suggested that “organiza-tions that visibly support AA/EO and encourage workforce diversity do not run the risk offostering resentment and increased conflict” (p. 387). The researchers went on to argue thatsuch policies may in fact “be viewed as one element of a fair and just workplace” (p. 387).

The Organizational Context

Recent research makes it clear, however, that discrimination based on race and gendercontinues to be problematic in the workplace. According to Lueptow, Garovich-Szabo, andLueptow (2001), sex stereotyping has remained relatively stable during the past 25 years,with instances of sex discrimination being more likely when women apply for jobs in nontra-ditional careers (Heilman et al., 1992; Jackson, Esses, & Burris, 2001). Studies also haveshown that minorities continue to face restricted access to professional jobs (Reskin, 1998).With this in mind and in light of Parker et al.’s (1997) caution regarding the significance of theorganizational context, it is important to note that few studies examined individual percep-tions of affirmative action policies in a work environment as highly gendered as the prison(see Camp, Saylor, & Wright, 2001; Camp et al., 1997).

The prison environment is an exceedingly masculinized organization wherein the traits ofthe dominant group (i.e., physical strength and a willingness to use force) are emphasizedand valued and where the essential skills for the job are assumed to be masculine in nature.“Simply by virtue of being male, they [male officers] are perceived by supervisors, cowork-ers, and administrators (and perhaps by themselves as well) as more capable of doing theirjobs, as ‘real officers’ and thus, by definition, ‘real men’” (Britton, 1997, p. 813). Womenentering such an environment often are subject to ridicule, harassment, and discrimination at

Griffin et al. / Perceptions of Organizational Support 191



the hands of both colleagues and supervisors (Belknap, 1991; Jurik, 1985, 1988; Owen,1985; Pogrebin & Poole, 1997, 1998; Pollock-Byrne, 1986; Savicki et al., 2003; Stohr et al.,1998; Zimmer, 1986). Minority officers also face resistance in what has been described as a“highly racialized” organization (Britton, 1997, p. 814; see also Owen, 1985). In her study ofboth men’s prisons and women’s prisons, Britton (1997) reported that a number of Whiteofficers equated the implementation of affirmative action policies with the “wholesale hiringand promotion of ‘unqualified’minority officers” (p. 813). This sentiment has been substan-tiated in other studies of criminal justice organizations, most extensively in the area ofpolicing (Garcia, 2003; Haarr, 1997; Martin, 1994; Pogrebin, Dodge, & Chatman, 2000).

Current Study

Consistent with previous research suggesting the importance of considering women andminority groups separately when examining issues of affirmative action policies (Crosby &Clayton, 1990; Eberhardt & Fiske, 1994; Parker et al., 1997), the present study examinedgroup differences (White men, White women, minority men, and minority women) in correc-tional officers’perceptions of organizational support for equal treatment within the work set-ting. In addition, the study explored the effect of these perceptions on job satisfaction, organi-zational commitment, and job stress.

Based on the limited research that has examined these issues and the historical resistancefaced by women and minorities entering the prison organization, the following washypothesized:

1. Perceptions of organizational support of equal treatment in the workplace will vary by racialand gender group, with White men perceiving the highest level of organizational support forsuch policies.

2. Among White men, higher levels of perceived organizational support for equal treatment poli-cies will be associated with decreased job satisfaction and organizational commitment andincreased job stress.

3. Among White women and male and female minority groups, higher levels of perceived organi-zational support for equal treatment policies will be associated with increased job satisfactionand organizational commitment and decreased job stress.

Method

Participants

The entire population of employees in all 10 adult state prisons in a Southwest statereceived a self-administered “Quality of Work Life” survey as part of the Department of Cor-rections’ efforts to assess employee perceptions of the prison organizational climate. Alongwith the questionnaire, employees received a cover letter explaining the purpose of the sur-vey and a self-addressed envelope, which facilitated the anonymous return of the question-naire to the Departmental Research Unit. Employees were allowed to complete the surveywhile on duty. Analyses were based on the 2,637 correctional officers who responded to thesurvey, which represented 55.2% of all officers surveyed.1

The respondents were predominantly male (73.1%) and ranged in age from 17 to 69, witha mean age of 35. Of the 2,637 respondents, 68% of the participants self-reported their race as




non-Hispanic White, and 32% identified themselves as Hispanics/Latinos or African Ameri-cans.2 Length of employment and education data were collected using categorical responsesets. The median length of employment for these participants was between 1 and 4 years(36%), with a significant portion of the sample employed less than a year (26.3%). Themedian level of education was a high school degree (58.4%).

The analyses examined group differences in the effect of perceived organizational supportof policies and procedures for equitable treatment on three workplace experience outcomes.3

Group differences were examined by the correctional officers’ self-reported racial categori-zation (minority vs. White) and gender (male vs. female) groups. Descriptive statistics foreach of the four groups are presented in Table 1.

Measures

Dependent variables. Scales of job satisfaction, job stress, and organizational commit-ment were created to measure officers’perceptions of the work environment. Although mostscale items were previously used by other researchers, scale items were factor analyzed andtested for internal reliability. Job Satisfaction was operationalized by a six-item Likert-typescale (alpha = .79) and was based on items previously used by Hepburn and Albonetti (1980),Hepburn (1985), and Griffin (2001). This scale measured the extent to which officers enjoyedtheir duties and experienced feelings of satisfaction at the end of the day (see the appendix forall scale items).


Table 1Participant Demographic Characteristics by Race and Gender Group

Group

White Males White Females Minority Males Minority Females(n = 1,308) (n = 498) (n = 657) (n = 174)

Characteristic M SD % M SD % M SD % M SD %

Age 36.3 11.0 36.2 9.4 33.3 9.4 32.7 8.4Tenure(years employed)Less than 1 year 23.9 30.1 26.9 37.41 to 4 years 34.0 34.5 40.3 38.55 to 9 years 22.9 23.7 18.7 14.410 to 14 years 10.6 8.6 8.1 6.915 to 19 years 6.2 2.0 4.7 1.120 years or more 2.3 1.0 1.2 1.1

EducationGED 11.2 16.3 8.7 15.5High school 59.4 54.2 65.3 58.0Associate degree 16.4 16.7 18.4 19.5Bachelor degree 10.2 10.4 4.6 4.0Master’s degree 1.5 0.8 0.8 1.1Ph.D. 0 0 0.5 0



Job stress was operationalized by a five-item Likert-type scale (alpha = .81) and was basedon items previously used by Crank, Regoli, Hewitt, and Culbertson (1995). This scale mea-sured the extent to which an officer perceived that his or her work environment led to negativeemotional experiences, such as tension and frustration.

Organizational commitment was operationalized by a 10-item Likert-type scale (alpha =.89) and was based on items previously used by Mowaday, Steers, and Porter (1979). Thisscale measured the extent to which an officer felt loyal to the state’s Department of Correc-tions and intended to remain employed with the department.

Independent variables. Organizational support of workplace policies promoting equaltreatment was measured by an eight-item Likert-type scale (alpha = .76). This scale measuredofficer perceptions of organizational efforts to promote equal treatment using policies andprocedures to target universal issues of cultural diversity, unfair treatment of women andminorities, equal access to merit increases and promotion, and organizational censure orsanction of sexual harassment. Additionally, one item in this scale pertained to the respon-dent’s perception of his or her own ability to be treated fairly by the organization.4

Control variables. Age, tenure at institution, and education level were used as control vari-ables. Gender and race were inherently controlled because of the modeling strategyemployed. All variables were the result of self-classification by the officers. The racialgroups included in this analysis were White and minority (those officers who self-identifiedas African American or Hispanic officers). Both tenure at the institution and education levelwere ordinal scales with categories listed in Table 1.

Analyses

Analysis of variance was first used to examine whether between-group differences (raceand gender groups) existed in the independent variable of perceptions of organizational sup-port for equitable treatment policies. Second, the study examined the bivariate correlationsbetween the independent variable, perceptions of organizational support for equitable treat-ment policies, and the three dependent work experience variables. Third, ordinary leastsquares multiple regression was used to determine the effects of perceptions of organiza-tional support for equitable treatment policies on each of the three work experience outcomesby race and gender group. Finally, z tests were employed to determine whether significantmagnitudinal differences existed between groups in the effect of organizational support forequitable treatment policies on each work experience outcome.

Results

Perceived Organizational Support of Equity Policies

To determine whether the officers’ level of perceived organizational support of policiesthat promote fair and equal treatment were invariant by gender and race, descriptive statisticsof these perceptions were examined across four groups of officers: White males, Whitefemales, minority males, and minority females. Analysis of variance results demonstratedthat the between-groups variance in the perceptions of organizational support for equity wasstatistically significant, F(3, 2581) = 10.353, p ≤ .001. That is, on average, each of the four




groups did not perceive the organizational support for equitable treatment policies in anequivalent manner.

In addition, t tests were subsequently used to determine the source of invariance within theindependent variable. Statistically significant differences between group mean levels of per-ceived support are indicated with superscripts in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, White malesviewed their correctional organization as significantly more supportive of equal treatmentpolicies (M = 3.54, SD = .59) than did each of the other three officer groups. Minority femalesviewed the organization as least supportive (M = 3.37, SD = .63), but their perceptions werenot significantly different from that of White females (M = 3.40, SD = .67) or minority males(M = 3.42, SD = .66). Similarly, the difference in perceived organizational support of thesepolicies between White females and minority males was not significant. These results con-firm Hypothesis 1, which suggested the existence of between-group variation in perceptions,with White males perceiving significantly greater organizational support for equity policiesthan other race-sex groups of correctional officers.

Relationship Between Organizational Perceptionsand Work Experiences

Bivariate correlations examined for the entire sample of correctional officers demon-strated that those officers who perceived their workplace policies and procedures to be sup-portive of a fair and equitable work environment also experienced a greater level of job satis-faction (r = .459, p ≤ .001), a greater level of organizational commitment (r = –.597, p ≤ .001),and a lower level of job stress (r = –.346, p ≤ .001). Given the potential influence of other fac-tors on work experiences, multivariate analyses were conducted.

Ordinary least squares multiple regression models were used to test the effect of the offi-cers’ perceptions of organizational policies on each of the three work experience outcomes,controlling for age, tenure, and education level. Separate models were conducted for each of4 demographic groups (White males, White females, minority males, and minority females)for each of the 3 work experience outcomes, resulting in 12 separate regression models.Results from these models are displayed in Table 3.5

As indicated in Table 3, perceptions of support for workplace policies promoting equaltreatment had a statistically significant effect on all three work experiences for each group.Similar to the relationships demonstrated by the bivariate correlations, results from the multi-ple regression models demonstrated that perceived organizational support for equitable treat-


Table 2Perceived Organizational Support for Equal Treatment

by Gender and Racial Group

Perceived Organizational Support for Equal Treatment

Gender and Race of Officer n M SD

White male 1,282 3.54 .59a,b,c

White female 491 3.40 .67a

Minority male 518 3.42 .66b

Minority female 132 3.37 .70c

Note: Identical superscripts denote statistically significant differences at p < .05 as indicated by Student’s t test.



ment policies was a statistically significant predictor of job satisfaction, job stress, and orga-nizational commitment. In addition, these models demonstrated that the directional effects ofthese relationships were invariant by race and gender groups. The resulting beta coefficients,associated standard errors, and amount of variance explained in each of the regressionmodels are presented in Table 3.

Contrary to Hypothesis 2, perceived organizational support for equal treatment policieshad a positive effect on job satisfaction, a positive effect on organizational commitment, anda negative effect on job stress for all four groups. The hypothesized negative effect of equita-ble treatment policies on job satisfaction among White males did not occur. Furthermore, thehypothesized negative effect of perceived organizational support for equal treatment policieson organizational commitment among White males was not supported. Also contrary toHypothesis 2 was the finding that perceived organizational support for equal treatment poli-cies was found to reduce job stress among White males. In sum, there were no differencesbetween White males and the other three officer groups in the directional effects of perceivedorganizational support for equal treatment policies on work experience outcomes. Therefore,Hypothesis 2 was rejected, and Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Although the coefficients were directionally invariant across groups, magnitudinal differ-ences may exist. If group differences in the magnitude of effects within each work experienceoutcome are statistically significant, this result would indicate a difference in the robustnessof the impact of perceived fairness on that work experience outcome. The z test statistic,which was suggested by Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, and Piquero (1998) as the mostappropriate statistical technique for this comparison, was used:

Zb b

SEb SEb=

−

+1 2

12

22

.

Results demonstrated four statistically significant between-group differences at the .05level for two work experiences outcomes: job satisfaction and organizational commitment.The magnitudinal impact of perceived organizational support for equitable treatment policieson job satisfaction was found to be significantly more robust for White males as compared to


Table 3Effect of Perceptions of Organizational Support for Equal Treatment

on Responses to Work Environment (�)

OrganizationalJob Satisfaction Job Stress Commitment

Officer Group β SE R2 β SE R2 β SE R2

White male .609 .03*a,b .247 –.486 .04* .143 .793 .03*c,d .376White female .521 .04*a .273 –.419 .06* .171 .689 .04*c .468Minority male .470 .04*b .223 –.408 .05* .147 .722 .04* .432Minority female .588 .07* .316 –.566 .09* .272 .658 .07*d .432

Note: Identical superscripts denote statistically significant differences at p < .05 as indicated by z test. Beta coeffi-cients indicated simultaneously control for education, age, and tenure.*p < .01.



both White females and minority males. There were no significant magnitudinal differencesin the coefficients between White males and minority females.

With respect to the organizational commitment outcome, significant magnitudinal differ-ences existed in the impact of perceived organizational support of equity policies on officers’organizational commitment. Specifically, significant differences existed between Whitemales and both White females and minority females. In contrast to the job satisfaction out-comes, no differences existed between White males and minority males or between minoritymales and females. It is interesting that there were also no statistically significant differencesbetween any groups in the magnitudinal effects of perceptions of organizational support forequal treatment policies on job stress.

Discussion

This study examined racial and gender differences in correctional officers’ perceptions ofthe organization’s support for policies that promote a fair and just work environment and theeffects of these perceptions on three measures of correctional officers’work experiences: jobsatisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment. It was hypothesized that perceptualdifferences exist within racial and gender groupings, with White males assessing moststrongly the prison system’s support for such equal treatment policies. In addition, the studyhypothesized that among White males, those who believed most strongly that the organiza-tion supported policies of equal treatment would report lower levels of job satisfaction andorganizational commitment and higher levels of job stress. Last, it was hypothesized thatamong female officers and male minority officers, increased perceptions of organizationalsupport for equal treatment policies would result in increased levels of job satisfaction andorganizational commitment, while having the opposite effect on job stress. Support wasfound for some but not all of the hypotheses.

Assessment of the Organization

In general, the findings provide strong evidence of significant differences in the subjectiveappraisal of the organization’s support for equal treatment by race and gender grouping. Sup-porting previous research (Camp et al., 1997; Kossek & Zonia, 1993; Parker et al., 1997),White male officers reported a greater perception of organizational support for equal treat-ment policies than any other group of officers. Given that the bulk of prior qualitative andquantitative research on the correctional setting suggests that the prison organization empha-sizes the “values, stereotypes, and biases of dominant identity groups (defined in part by gen-der and race-ethnicity),” which are then “codified in organizational systems, processes, andprocedures,” it could be argued that White male officers believe there is little need for suchpolicies, so any effort on the part of the institution would be perceived as supportive (Parkeret al., 1997, p. 378). Indeed, some scholars have suggested that the belief that an organizationsupports equal opportunity and treatment allows the individual to maintain personal beliefsregarding fairness and equity (Dovido, Mann, & Gaertner, 1989). More important, maintain-ing this belief of fair treatment within the workplace allows White male employees to “attrib-ute the poor career mobility of women and racial-ethnic minorities to internal (e.g., lack ofability, experience, or motivation) rather than external (e.g., the existence of organizationaldiscrimination) factors” (Parker et al., 1997, p. 377). Maintaining such a belief also may min-




imize an individual’s concern that one’s status group is perceived as having “gained at theexpense of another group, either through direct exploitation or by passive acceptance ofprivilege” (Branscombe, 1998, p. 168).

Interpreting Officers’ Positive Perceptions

Much like Parker et al. (1997), this study did not find that White male officers’responses tothe work environment were affected negatively by their perceptions of organizational sup-port for equal treatment. The hypothesis regarding the relationship between perceptions oforganizational efforts to promote equitable treatment and officer response to the work envi-ronment reflected the belief that White male officers would interpret policies regarding equaltreatment as unnecessary, unfair, and/or promoting the advancement of unqualified person-nel, thus leading to higher levels of stress and lower levels of job satisfaction and organiza-tional commitment. Absent data regarding potential situational influences (e.g., experiencewith past discrimination or reverse discrimination), this study does not examine the subjec-tive processes by which officers assess the organization’s efforts. Given the rich body of qual-itative research on the prison organization, however, several interpretations regarding thisunexpected finding are suggested.

First, perhaps White males do not perceive policies as providing an advantage at theexpense of the individual or their reference group. Indeed, Parker et al., (1997) suggest thatmen might have positive reactions to affirmative action policies when such policies are per-ceived as contributing to a feeling of group pride. A sense of group pride, however, is not sup-ported by the vast majority of studies examining the nature of the organizational culture ofthe prison. Historically, women and minorities have faced considerable opposition to theirentry into the corrections field (Belknap, 2001). Women, in particular, have encounteredresistance from a largely White male in-group that questions the legitimacy of a woman’splace (outside of administrative duties) in the prison organization (Hemmens, Stohr,Schoeler, & Miller, 2002). Arguably, the entry of women into the correctional organizationnullifies the hypermasculine conception of the role of prison guard. It then becomes more dif-ficult to maintain “the ideological connection between masculinity and physical strengthfundamental to occupational masculinity” (Britton, 2003, p. 182; see also Zimmer, 1986).This desire to closely align one’s self-image with the dangerous and macho occupational roleshould be understood as a significant “psychological benefit of the job” (Martin & Jurik,1996, p. 67). Thus, resistance on the part of White males to integration and questions regard-ing the competency of women and minorities may very well serve an important instrumentalfunction. According to Branscombe (1998), “the most direct means of achieving a positivesocial identity involves portraying one’s in-group as better than an out-group” (p. 168).When the nature and value of the in-group’s role within the prison is assailed, in-group pridebecomes a divisive force.

A second, closely related explanation suggests that White men are not negatively affectedby organizational efforts to support equal treatment because they themselves need to believein the concept of equality in the workplace. As noted previously, maintaining the belief ofequitable treatment within the organization allows White male employees to attribute thelack of apparent success of women and minorities in the organization as a function of theindividual’s limitations, not those of the organization. This, in turn, supports the notion thatthe individual is wholly responsible for all positive outcomes.




An equally valid interpretation of male officers’failure to be negatively influenced by per-ceived organizational support for equal treatment is “the gap between policy and practice”(Britton, 2003, p. 192). White men are not threatened (thus their work experiences are notnegatively influenced) by policies that appear to support the integration of women andminorities because these policies do little to influence the informal network that supports theinterests of the dominant group. In her study of men and women working as prison officers,Britton (2003) found a general consensus among all officers regarding the importance of per-sonal networks to facilitate workplace opportunities. Regardless of race or gender, officersspoke openly about the importance of developing informal relationships with supervisorsand administrators to secure promotions. According to Britton (2003), such advocates or“daddies” are powerful men who have the ability to influence the organization’s promotionand reward structure to benefit those with whom they share a personal relationship. Bias isintroduced into this networking process as White men represent the vast majority of those insupervisory and administrative positions and White officers have greater access to informalties through informal socializing segregated along racial and gender lines.6

Women and minorities, on the other hand, may not have the opportunity to develop, muchless benefit from, these important social contacts. According to several studies of correc-tional organizations, women often are excluded from traditionally masculine social activities(e.g., fishing, drinking, and golfing), where significant networking takes place (Belknap,2001; Britton, 2003; Pogrebin & Poole, 1998). Women appear less likely to socialize outsidethe workplace, wary of the sexual innuendos that seem to be part of an occupational culturecharacterized by a “cult of masculinity” (Pogrebin & Poole, 1998, p. 119). Additionally,women believe they have less time to socialize with fellow employees outside of workbecause of family responsibilities (Belknap, 2001; Britton, 2003). Minority men, althoughnot facing gendered boundaries restricting interaction with the dominate group, still appearto lack access to networking opportunities afforded to White male officers. Studies of correc-tions and policing organizations indicate that informal contacts tend to be racially segregated(Britton, 2003; Haar, 1997; Morash & Haarr, 1995; Owen, 1985; Pogrebin et al., 2000).When examined in this context, these findings suggest that White men may not feel threat-ened by equal treatment policies in an organization where informal practices outweigh for-mal policies. For women and minorities, access (the acquisition of recognition and rights)has increased, yet their influence (the ability to use the rights and gain advantage and power)within the organization has remained negligible (Belknap, 2001).

Differences by Race and Gender

Clearly, female minority officers have a very different perception of organizational effortsto support equal treatment in the workplace. Of the four groups, minority women were leastlikely to support the belief that individuals were treated in an equal and consistent mannerregardless of race or gender. This finding is not surprising given the body of literature that,although small, consistently has identified the marginalized experience of minority womenin criminal justice occupations. Scholars have conceptualized the experience of being both awoman and a minority in a largely White male–dominated occupation as being doublymarginalized (Belknap, 2001; Martin, 1994; Pogrebin et al., 2000). Minority women faceresistance when male officers question women’s physical abilities and the appropriateness ofwomen working in a symbolically masculine job. In addition, minority women face resis-




tance because of lack of toleration for cultural differences. This is an experience unique tominority women, as they have no means by which to identify with the in-group—they are nei-ther White nor male. The status of minority female officers provides them little commonalitywith those in power, thus limiting their ability to build influence and advance within the orga-nization. Of interest as well is the finding that White female officers were more similar tominority women than White men in their perception of organizational support for equal treat-ment. This suggests that gender is the predominant moderating factor, which is not surprisinggiven the overtly masculine culture of the organization.

In addition, this study found that perceptions of organizational efforts to promote equaltreatment significantly influence all responses to the work environment for each group. Onlyin the case of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, however, did the degree towhich perceptions of equal treatment policies influence work responses vary significantly bygroup. The finding regarding job stress supports previous research suggesting that the job-related characteristics surrounding the position of correctional officers have a more robustimpact on job stress than the individual characteristics of the officer (Armstrong & Griffin,2004).

Of the four groups examined, White male officers reported the most robust impact of per-ceptions of equal treatment on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Also con-trary to the hypotheses is the finding that White male and minority female levels of job satis-faction are similarly influenced by perceptions of equal treatment. How might we reconcilethis finding given the earlier result that these two groups differ significantly in their beliefregarding the extent to which the organization promotes equal treatment? It is probable thatgroup perceptions of the function of the policies differ as well. According to Branscombe(1998), “because members of high- and low-status groups are motivated by different goals,either to legitimize their group’s superior position or challenge their group’s disadvantagedposition, strategies for maintaining a positive social identity will differ” (p. 168). Arguably,these two groups, which represent the high- and low-status groups within this prison organi-zation, may very well identify these policies as a type of strategy or potential strategy forobtaining very different goals. For the in-group, the perception that the organization supportsequal treatment reaffirms one’s existing belief that a level playing field indeed exists, that thesuccess of the in-group is deserved and not the result of “passive acceptance of privilege”(Branscombe, 1998, p. 168). For the low-status group, the perception of organizational com-mitment to equity in the workplace, although perhaps unfulfilled, indicates at minimum -recognition of the problem and the potential for change in the future. In each instance, sucha belief in equity in the workplace has a significant positive influence on officer jobsatisfaction.

The findings also suggest that reported levels of organizational commitment among maleofficers, regardless of race or ethnicity, are influenced similarly by perceptions of equitabletreatment and that this effect is found to be more robust than that of all women officers.Again, the data do not allow for an assessment of the psychological processes or motivationsinfluencing perceptions of the organization. However, when examining more closely theissue of commitment to the organization, it appears to tap into a sense of loyalty and pride.What this suggests then is a significantly more positive effect along gender lines as a result ofminority men feeling accepted into the masculine organization more so than women of anyrace or ethnicity (see Vallas, 2003).




Limitations and Implications

Of course, it must be kept in mind that these findings and subsequent interpretations aresubject to several limitations. As mentioned previously, this study did not assess the situa-tional context, such as an individual’s previous experience with discrimination, or other fac-tors such as sexist or racist attitudes that may influence officer perceptions. The data do notinclude objective measures of variables that may be related to perceptions of fair treatmentand equal opportunity within the organization. For instance, the data do not provide informa-tion on the number of minority hires or recent promotions (see Camp et al., 1997), nor do thedata incorporate a measure of racial diversity within the work group (see Camp et al., 2001).

This study does add significantly to the body of research that examines the effect of indi-vidual perceptions of organizational support for equitable treatment on several importantofficer responses to the prison work environment. The findings support the notion that orga-nizational support of fair and equal treatment does not necessarily result in a backlash effectfrom those who would not appear to benefit from such efforts. Nor do such organizationalefforts appear to result in less satisfaction and more stress among correctional officers. Per-haps such a negative response was not found because the study made use of a more globalconception of equal opportunity and fair treatment within the workplace, avoiding such ter-minology that likely would elicit a negative reaction (e.g., affirmative action, quotas).Clearly, however, further research is warranted, specifically focusing on prisons and othercriminal justice organizations whose unique historical context would suggest an inherentresistance on the part of the in-group to the integration of those considered to be outsiders. Asnoted by Lutze and Murphy (1999), “the social setting of prison is an arena in whichultramasculine sex-role stereotypes are promoted and must be confronted, whether or not theindividual inmate or staff member subscribes to such beliefs or behavior” (p. 727). The poli-cies implemented within this prison organization reflect a formal effort to promote the equaltreatment of all employees. The perceived disjuncture, however, between the resistance facedby women and minorities entering the prison organization and the support of the in-group oforganizational efforts to promote equality within the workplace is disconcerting. Futureresearch must examine the extent to which formal efforts to promote a diverse workforcewithin a just and fair work environment are circumvented by informal efforts to maintain thestatus quo. Without such efforts, meaningful participation and retention of female andminority officers within the prison organization will remain limited.




AppendixJob Satisfaction (alpha = .79) M SD Range

I like the duties I perform in my job 3.69 0.89 1 to 5I am satisfied with my present job assignment 3.55 1.0 1 to 5At the end of the day, I usually feel that I have done something

especially well 3.29 1.0 1 to 5If I had the chance, I would get a job in something other than what

I am doing nowa 2.89 1.2 1 to 5I enjoy most of the work I do here 3.71 0.84 1 to 5If I had to do it all over again, knowing what I know now, I would

take the same job again 3.33 1.1 1 to 5Scale 3.41 0.72 1 to 5

Job Stress (alpha = .80) M SD Range

When I’m at work, I often feel tense or upset 2.81 1.2 1 to 5I usually feel that I am under a lot of pressure when I am at work 2.73 1.1 1 to 5There are a lot of things about my job that can make me pretty upset 3.28 1.2 1 to 5A lot of times, my job makes me very frustrated or angry 2.95 1.2 1 to 5My work environment allows me to be attentive yet relaxed and at easea 3.18 1.1 1 to 5Scale 2.99 0.85 1 to 5

Commitment to Organization (alpha = .89) M SD Range

There is much to be gained from staying with Arizona Departmentof Corrections (ADC) 3.27 1.1 1 to 5

If I remain in corrections, I would prefer to remain with ADC 3.48 1.0 1 to 5I am proud to be employed by ADC 3.59 1.0 1 to 5I am currently looking for another job outside ADCa 3.62 0.95 1 to 5I owe a great deal to ADC 2.89 1.1 1 to 5Deciding to work for ADC was a very positive move on my part 3.34 1.1 1 to 5Most of the time, ADC is managed very well 2.47 1.1 1 to 5If given the chance, ADC would take advantage of mea 3.14 1.1 1 to 5When meeting new people, I am proud to tell them that I work for ADC 3.22 1.3 1 to 5I feel a sense of loyalty to ADC 2.62 1.1 1 to 5Scale 3.17 0.79 1 to 5

Perceived Organizational Support forEqual Treatment (alpha = .76) M SD Range

Policies and procedures here promote cultural diversity amongADC employees in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender 3.29 1.1 1 to 5

Women and minorities have equal access to merit recognition andpromotion opportunities (the same as men and nonminorities) 3.67 1.1 1 to 5

People here have are treated fairly regardless of their race or gender 3.36 1.2 1 to 5Policies and procedures here create standards so that decisions are

fair and consistent 3.12 1.1 1 to 5I feel that I have good opportunities for promotion within the department 3.46 1.0 1 to 5Policies and procedures provide opportunities to appeal or challenge a decision 3.23 1.0 1 to 5Allegations of sexual harassment are taken seriously by management 4.10 0.90 1 to 5Anyone who treats women or minorities unfairly will receive

meaningful sanctions 3.47 0.90 1 to 5Scale 3.46 0.64 1 to5




Note: For job satisfaction, items are coded as 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, and 5 =strongly agree. For job stress, items are coded as 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, and5 = strongly agree. For commitment to organization, items are coded as 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =uncertain, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. For perceived organizational support for equal treatment, items arecoded as 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.a. Denotes reversal.

Notes

1. Some significant differences were found when comparing the demographic characteristics, job classifica-tion, or institutional location of those who responded to the survey with those who did not respond. Employeeswho were female, older, held longer tenure, held higher level positions, or held security-oriented positions weremore likely to respond. Response rates varied between 43.9% and 75.3% at the 10 institutions, with an averageresponse rate of 58.4%.

2. Given the low numbers of correctional officers (less than 2%) who indicated they were of Asian or AmericanIndian descent, these individuals were excluded from the analysis.

3. With the exception of the Equality in the Work Environment scale, all scales used in this study were informedby scales from previous studies. Some items were altered to incorporate the name of the local agency or to updatewording. All items were measured on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree), with somerecoding of items such that higher numeric values represented a higher level of the variable measured (e.g., higherlevel of stress, more positive attitude toward the quality of supervision). Confirmatory factor analyses and reliabil-ity analyses verified the integrity of all scales. Only items that loaded on a single factor were used to construct eachscale. Alpha reliability coefficients are reported in Table 1. All scale items are listed in the appendix.

4. An examination of interitem correlations demonstrated that an individual’s perspective of his or her ownopportunities paralleled his or her more global perceptions about the effects of these policies in general.

5. Table 3 reports only the beta coefficients and standard errors for the independent variable perceived organi-zational support for equity policies, obtained in each of the 12 separate regression models. Age, tenure, and educa-tion were entered in each equation as control variables, and their effects are not reported here.

6. An examination of the larger study reveals the following breakdown by racial/ethnic and gender groupingfor supervisory personnel (major, captain, lieutenant, and sergeant): 59.7% White male, 28.5% minority male,9.7% White female, and 2.1% minority female.

References

Armstrong, G. S., & Griffin, M. L. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatmentand correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 577-592.

Badgett, M. V. L. (1999). The impact of affirmative action on public-sector employment in California, 1970-1990.In P. Ong (Ed.), Impacts of affirmative action: Policies and consequences in California (pp. 83-102). WalnutCreek, CA: AltaMira.

Belknap, J. (1991). Women in conflict: An analysis of women correctional officers. Women and Criminal Justice,2, 89-115.

Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman: Gender, crime and justice (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group.Blank, R. (1985). An analysis of workers’ choices between employment in the public and private sectors. Indus-

trial and Labor Relations Review, 38, 211-224.Bobo, L. (2000). Race and beliefs about affirmative action: Assessing the effects of interests, group threat, ideol-

ogy, and racism. In D. O. Sears, J. Sidanius, & L. Bobo (Eds.), Racialized politics: The debate about racism inAmerica (pp, 137-164). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Branscombe, N. R. (1998). Thinking about one’s gender group’s privileges or disadvantages: Consequences forwell-being in women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 167-184.

Britton, D. M. (1997). Perceptions of the work environment among correctional officers: Do race and sex matter?Criminology, 35, 85-105.




Britton, D. M. (2003). At work in the iron cage: The prison as gendered organization. New York: New York Uni-versity Press.

Camp, S. D., Saylor, W. G., & Wright, K. N. (2001). Racial diversity of correctional workers and inmates: Organi-zational commitment, teamwork, and workers’ efficacy in prisons. Justice Quarterly, 18, 411-427.

Camp, S. D., Steiger, T. L., Wright, K. N., Saylor, W. G., & Gilman, E. (1997). Affirmative action and the “levelplaying field”: Comparing perceptions of own and minority job advancement opportunities. Prison Journal,77, 313-334.

Carmines, E. G., & Layman, G. C. (1998). When prejudice matters: The impact of racial stereotypes on the racialpolicy preferences of Democrats and Republicans. In J. Hurwitz & M. Peffley (Eds.), Perception and preju-dice: Race and politics in the United States (pp. 100-134). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Crank, J., Regoli, R., Hewitt, J., & Culbertson, R. (1995). Institutional and organizational antecedents of rolestress, work alienation and anomie among police executives. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 152-171.

Crosby, F. J., & Clayton, S. (1990). Affirmative action and the issue of expectancies. Journal of Social Issues, 46,61-79.

Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. (2003). Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policydebates. American Psychologist, 58, 93-115.

Dovido, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1996). Affirmative action, unintentional racial biases, and intergroup relations.Journal of Social Issues, 52, 51-75.

Dovido, J. F., Mann, J., & Gaertner, S. L. (1989). Resistance to affirmative action: The implications of aversiveracism. In F. A. Blanchard & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Affirmative action in perspective (pp. 83-102). New York:Springer-Verlag.

Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1994). Affirmative action in theory and practice: Issues of power, ambiguity, andgender versus race. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 201-220.

Garcia, V. (2003). Difference in the police department: Women, policing, and doing gender. Journal of Contem-porary Criminal Justice, 19, 330-344.

Griffin, M. L. (2001). Job satisfaction among detention officers: Assessing the relative contribution of organiza-tional climate variables. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 219-232.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).Haarr, R. N. (1997). Patterns of interaction in a police patrol bureau: Race and gender barriers to integration. Jus-

tice Quarterly, 14, 53-85.Heilman, M. E., & Alcott, V. B. (2001). What I think you think of me: Women’s reactions to being viewed as bene-

ficiaries of preferential selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 574-582.Heilman, M. E., Battle, W. S., Keller, C. E., & Lee, R. A. (1998). Type of affirmative action policy: A determinant

of reactions to sex-based preferential selection? Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 190-205.Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action

efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 536-544.Hemmens, C., Stohr, M., Schoeler, M., & Miller, B. (2002). One step up, two steps back: The progression of per-

ceptions of women’s work in prisons and jails. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 473-489.Hepburn, J. (1985). The exercise of power in coercive organizations: A study of prison guards. Criminology, 23,

145-164.Hepburn, J., & Albonetti, C. (1980). Role conflict in correctional institutions: An empirical examination of the

treatment-custody dilemma among correctional staff. Criminology, 17, 445-459.Jackson, L. M., Esses, V. M., & Burris, C. T. (2001). Contemporary sexism and discrimination: The importance of

respect for men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 48-61.Jurik, N. (1985). An officer and a lady: Organizational barriers to women working as correctional officers in

men’s prisons. Social Problems, 32, 375-388.Jurik, N. (1988). Striking a balance: Female correctional officers, gender role stereotypes, and male prisons.

Sociological Inquiry, 58, 291-305.Kluegel, J. R., & Bobo, L. (1993). Opposition to race-targeting: Self-interest, stratification ideology, or racial atti-

tudes? American Sociological Review, 58, 443-464.Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1983). Affirmative action attitudes: Effects of self-interest, racial affect, and strati-

fication beliefs on Whites’ views. Social Forces, 61, 784-797.Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Race and sex differences in line managers’ reactions to equal employment

opportunity and affirmative action interventions. Group and Organization Management, 20, 409-439.




Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts topromote diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 61-81.

Kravitz, D. A. (1995). Attitudes toward affirmative action plans directed at Blacks: Effects of plan and individualdifferences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 2192-2220.

Kravitz, D. A., Klineberg, S. L., Avery, D., Nguyen, A. K., Lund, C., & Fu, E. F. (2000). Attitudes toward affirma-tive action: Correlations with demographic variables and with beliefs about targets, actions, and economiceffects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1109-1136.

Kravitz, D. A., & Plantania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects of target sex and eth-nicity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 928-938.

Leck, J. D., Saunders, D. M., & Charbonneau, M. (1996). Affirmative action programs: An organizational justiceperspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 79-89.

Lueptow, L. B., Garovich-Szabo, L., & Lueptow, M. B. (2001). Social change and the persistence of sex typing:1974-1997. Social Forces, 80, 1-36.

Lutze, F., & Murphy, D. (1999). Ultramasculine prison environments and inmates’ adjustment: It’s time to movebeyond the “boys will be boys” paradigm. Justice Quarterly, 16, 709-733.

Martin, S. E. (1994). Outsider within the station house: The impact of race and gender on Black women police.Social Problems, 41, 383-400.

Martin, S. E., & Jurik, N. C. (1996). Doing justice, doing gender: Women in law and criminal justice occupations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small GroupResearch, 27, 248-264.

Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects ofdiversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402-433.

Morash, M., & Haarr, R. (1995). Gender, workplace problems, and stress in policing. Justice Quarterly, 12, 113-140.

Mowaday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Nacoste, R. W. (1987). But do they care about fairness? The dynamics of preferential treatment and minorityinterest. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 177-191.

Nosworthy, G. J., Lea, J. A., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1995). Opposition to affirmative action: Racial affect and tradi-tional value predictors across four programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 314-337.

Owen, B. (1985). Race and gender relations among prison workers. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 147-159.Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., & Christiansen, N. D. (1997). Support for affirmative action, justice perceptions, and

work attitudes: A study of gender and racial-ethnic group differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 376-389.

Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality ofregression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859-866.

Pogrebin, M., Dodge, M., & Chatman, H. (2000). Reflections of African-American women on their careers inurban policing: Their experiences of racial and sexual discrimination. International Journal of the Sociologyof Law, 28, 311-326.

Pogrebin, M. R., & Poole, E. D. (1997). The sexualized work environment: A look at women jail officers. PrisonJournal, 77, 41-57.

Pogrebin, M. R., & Poole, E. D. (1998). Women deputies and jail work. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Jus-tice, 14, 117-134.

Pollock-Byrne, J. M. (1986). Sex and supervision: Guarding male and female inmates. New York: Greenwood.Reskin, B. F. (1998). The realities of affirmative action in employment. Washington, DC: American Sociological

Association.Savicki, V., Cooley, E., & Gjvesvold, J. (2003). Harassment as a predictor of job burnout in correctional officers.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 602-619.Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistica-

tion: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70, 476-490.

Slaughter, J. E., Sinar, E. F., & Bachiochi, P. (2002). Black applicants reaction to affirmative action plans: Effectsof plan content and previous experience with discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 333-344.




Stohr, M. K., Mays, L. G., Beck, A. C., & Kelley, T. (1998). Sexual harassment in women’s jails. Journal of Con-temporary Criminal Justice, 14, 135-155.

Summers, R. J. (1995). Attitudes toward different methods of affirmative action. Journal of Applied Social Psy-chology, 25, 1090-1104.

Tougas, F., Crosby, F. J., Joly, S., & Pelchat, D. (1995). Men’s attitudes toward affirmative action: Justice andintergroup relations at the crossroads. Social Justice Research, 8, 57-71.

Vallas, S. (2003). Rediscovering the color line within work organizations: The “knitting of racial groups” revis-ited. Work and Occupations, 30, 379-400.

Veilleux, F., & Tougas, F. (1989). Male acceptance of affirmative action programs for women: The results of altru-istic or egoistic motives? International Journal of Psychology, 24, 485-496.

Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelson, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and per-formance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy Management Journal, 36, 590-602.

Zimmer, L. E. (1986). Women guarding men. Chicago: University Chicago Press.

Marie L. Griffin, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at Arizona State University.Her research focuses primarily on organizational climate in the correctional setting, inmate perceptions of punish-ment, and female offenders. She recently completed a study of the gendered nature of drug market activities. Someof her recent work can be found in Justice Quarterly, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and Journal of CriminalJustice.

Gaylene S. Armstrong is an assistant professor at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Her research focuseson various issues in corrections and juvenile delinquency. She is currently working on a comprehensive evaluationof sex offender management in Maricopa County, Arizona. Some of her recent work can be found in Justice Quar-terly, Crime & Delinquency, and Journal of Criminal Justice. She has also coauthored an edited book titled Cor-rectional Boot Camps: Studies Examining Military Basic Training as a Model for Corrections.

John R. Hepburn is a professor and affiliate faculty in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology atArizona State University. He has published widely on offender reentry into the community, in which he studies theeffects of individual risk factors and criminal justice organizational structures and processes on the offender’sfuture social and criminal outcomes and on the social organization of the prison as a complex organization, withparticular attention to the role of correctional officers as agents of control in this coercive environment. His currentresearch focuses on the extent to which variations in the administrative control of the prison can affect the level ofinmate misconduct in the prison.




correctional officers' perceptions of equitable treatment in the masculinized prison...

Documents